Is Musk too rich to go broke? Probably, but anyone can fail financially.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Elon Musk's wealth mainly comes from his ownership stakes in two companies: 1. Tesla – around 37% of his wealth is from Tesla stock, although it was as high as 75% in 2020. 2. SpaceX – valued contracts include a $20 billion deal with the United States federal government. He also earned money from selling PayPal to eBay for $1.5 billion in stock, receiving $175.8 million personally. His net worth is estimated to be around $424.7 billion but this varies from week to week depending on the stock market.
Other business ventures of Musk’s are Neuralink – brain machine interfaces and neurotechnology, The Boring Company - underground tunnels and infrastructure and
SolarCity which is solar energy, but was sold to Tesla in 2016. In 1995 Musk owned Zip2 which was an online content publishing company that was sold to Compaq. He also owns Starlink which is an internet constellation company.
No doubt Musk is a a true visionary, entrepreneur and one of the greatest geniuses of our era.
Musk is still a young man, born June 28, 1971. The world may be yet to see what he will achieve.
However, anyone can spread himself too thin. Obviously, he has a lot of great people working for him, but anyone can overdo their capabilities or overestimate themselves.
In my opinion, it was a terrible idea for Musk to become so heavily involved in government and politics. He makes billions from the government contracts with SpaceX. I think that is definitely a conflict of interest.
However, he is now out of his leadership role in Washington. After his temper tantrum last week and saying all kinds of dumb stuff about President Trump he probably won’t be returning to any leadership roles. He further over elevated himself and his role in Trump’s election.
This reminds us again of this truth: Intelligent geniuses can do and say stupid things. Throwing mud at President Trump on social media has made Musk look like a spoiled brat who has seemingly always gotten his way. Again, we are reminded, no one always gets his or her way in this life.
Is Musk too rich to go broke? Probably, but anyone can fail financially. Musk’s wealth is mostly tied up in stocks, making him “cash poor,” or having low liquidity. But with SpaceX capturing 70% of the global launch market, his financial downfall is unlikely. Unless, he continues to hurl ill-will at President Trump which could potentially cost Musk a lot.
The problem is that if the US cancelled its contracts with SpaceX, it could impact our manned missions to the International Space Station. New space projects like NASA’s Artemis moon program could be impacted. Dozens of NASA science programs would be affected plus the impact on national security as SpaceX provides critical space launch and communication services to the US military. These and other consequences could significantly affect the US space program and national security.
Trump, Musk and all the others on Capitol Hill need to work together for the common good of our nation. Musk has proven his genius and capabilities. However, his temper tantrum and verbiage last week make me wonder a bit as to just what he is really capable of doing in a moment of rage?
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
Dorothy Shea, acting U.S. Ambassador to the UN, vetoed a resolution for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza despite unanimous support from other Security Council members. Critics, including international scholars and rights organizations, allege Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide, citing widespread destruction, displacement, and dehumanization of Palestinians.
byTerry Hansen Guest Commentary
Dorothy Shea, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, recently vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza." This veto was issued despite the resolution’s description of the humanitarian situation in Gaza as "catastrophic," and in the face of unanimous support from the council's other 14 members.
Ironically, in a speech on Holocaust Remembrance day, Shea stated that "hatred, dehumanization and apathy can lead to genocide...Atrocities like the Holocaust don't just happen'; they're allowed to happen. It is up to us to stop them."
Yes, it is. In fact, the U.N. Genocide Convention, ratified by the United States in 1988, requires nations to prevent and punish genocide.
... over 55 scholars of the Holocaust, genocide and mass violence released a statement deploring the atrocities committed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as by Israeli forces,...
Notably, on October 13, 2023, less than one week after the start of Israel's intensive bombing campaign in Gaza, Israeli Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Raz Segal wrote:
"Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open, and unashamed....Israel’s goal is to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza. And those of us watching around the world are derelict in our responsibility to prevent them from doing so."
And just a few days later, nearly 800 scholars and international lawyers working in the fields of conflict and genocide issued a public statement titled, "Scholars Warn of Potential Genocide in Gaza." They cite the dehumanization and mass displacement of Palestinians, statements by Israeli officials, as well as the high casualty rate and "obliteration" of neighborhoods and families.
Finally, on December 9, over 55 scholars of the Holocaust, genocide and mass violence released a statement deploring the atrocities committed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as by Israeli forces, and warning of the danger of genocide in Gaza. Particular concern is expressed regarding statements by Israeli leaders holding all Palestinians in Gaza responsible for October 7. These scholars assert:
"Casting an entire civilian population as enemies marks the history of modern genocide, with the Armenian genocide (1915-1918) and the Rwanda genocide (1994) as well-known examples."
Yet the U.S. has repeatedly dismissed evidence of genocide in Gaza. Despite these denials, allegations of genocide have intensified.
Human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published reports accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, and these organizations are not alone in reaching this determination.
Amos Goldberg, a Holocaust and genocide researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has also concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. Goldberg asserts:
"What is happening in Gaza is genocide because the level and pace of indiscriminate killing, destruction, mass expulsions, displacement, famine, executions, the wiping out of cultural and religious institutions...and the sweeping dehumanization of the Palestinians — create an overall picture of genocide, of a deliberate conscious crushing of Palestinian existence in Gaza."
Goldberg explains that, historically, most perpetrators of genocide have claimed they were acting in self-defense.
Moreover, the U.S. must advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza, while ensuring that food, water and medicine can reach civilians without restriction.
Significantly, a Dutch investigation published in May in the newspaper NRC interviewed seven internationally known genocide and Holocaust scholars from six countries—including Israel. All found Israel’s actions in Gaza to be acts of genocide. The scholars interviewed include:
Martin Shaw, author of the book, "What is genocide?"
Melanie O'Brien, president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars
Dirk Moses, senior editor of the Journal of Genocide Research
The refusal of the U.S. to act, and its obstruction of efforts to prevent further atrocities, betrays the principle of “never again.” To fulfill its obligations under the Genocide Convention, the U.S. should acknowledge these findings and halt military aid to Israel that could be used to commit genocide.
Moreover, the U.S. must advocate for a ceasefire in Gaza, while ensuring that food, water and medicine can reach civilians without restriction. In addition, the U.S. should support international investigations, including the work of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
If not, history will judge this moment, and the record will be clear: the duty to prevent genocide was willfully ignored.
Terry Hansen is an opinion writer who has contributed multiple articles on Gaza, focusing on humanitarian issues, U.S. policy, and Israel’s actions in the region. He is Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Milwaukee.
The bottom line: Be satisfied with what you have. Don’t covet what belongs to someone else.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Would a million dollars make you happy? Would you be satisfied knowing you could eat well and do whatever you wanted? A million dollars isn’t what it used to be, but it’s still a huge sum of money. You could earn about $40,000 a year in interest. But wait—what if you had $100 million? You would be one of the richest people in the world! Can your mind even comprehend having that much money? Would you be satisfied?
What about $100 million in bitcoin?
Apparently, it wasn’t enough for John Woeltz of Paducah, Kentucky, known as the “Crypto King of Kentucky.” He wanted \$30 million more in bitcoin—even if it meant stealing it from an acquaintance.
Woeltz and his business partner, William Duplessie, are accused of holding a man from Italy hostage for 17 days. They are alleged to have beaten him, cut him with a chainsaw, dangled him over a staircase, and kept him bound, among other torturous acts.
The victim reportedly owns $30 million in bitcoin, while Woeltz is said to control over $100 million in the cryptocurrency.
According to reports, Woeltz and Duplessie lured the Italian man to the U.S. under the pretense of a bitcoin trading deal, which turned out to be a setup for an attempted robbery. The pair wanted access to the man’s bitcoin password.
Eventually, the man reportedly gave Woeltz the password. When Woeltz left briefly to retrieve his laptop, the victim seized the opportunity and bolted out the door, seeking help from a New York City traffic officer walking down the street.
Woeltz and Duplessie now face the possibility of spending years in prison, paying millions in legal fees, and being sued by the victim—who could ultimately gain a significant portion of their wealth.
The bottom line: Be satisfied with what you have. Don’t covet what belongs to someone else. Trying to obtain another person’s money or property through illegal or immoral means only leads to painful consequences.
Evil never stops at level one or two—it always pushes further into debasement and depravity. A person who starts out stealing pennies may eventually steal dollars, doing whatever it takes to satisfy their growing thirst for more.
Many serial killers began with what seemed like minor crimes, but their actions escalated into hurting people, eventually developing into a thirst for murder.
Sow a thought, reap an act. Sow an act, reap a lifestyle. Sow a lifestyle, reap a destiny.
News sources report that Woeltz owns a jet and a helicopter. He was renting a six-floor luxury townhome in New York City for $30,000 a month—the site of the alleged kidnapping. Today, he and Duplessie sit in a New York City jail.
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
This hyperconnectivity has profound psychological implications. From an operational standpoint, informal and unregulated communication channels present structural inefficiencies.
byNabajyoti Narzary Guest Commentary
The modern workplace is constantly dynamic, molded and remolded by digital technologies designed to improve communication, coordination, and efficiency. However, beneath the surface of this digital revolution lies a growing concern: the blurring of boundaries between professional obligations and personal time.
What once ended with the office bell has now extended into our evenings, weekends, and even holidays. This erosion of work-life separation is contributing to increased stress, mental fatigue, and the slow but steady loss of personal well-being.
Contemporary professional environments are increasingly defined by their dependence on instant communication technologies. While these platforms promise speed and connectivity, they have introduced a new and less visible cost: the expectation of constant availability. Whether it's group messaging platforms, voice calls, or video conferencing applications, the deluge of notifications and messages promotes an environment where individuals feel perpetually on call.
Photo: StockSnap/Pixabay
The line between work and life has increasingly blurred as new technologies keeps workers in constant communication with employers.
Employees today are frequently integrated into multiple digital groups, ranging from routine administrative updates to emergency response coordination. The volume and frequency of communication—often outside standard working hours—create a digital tether. What was once considered personal time is now frequently invaded by a stream of requests, reminders, and follow-ups. Unlike traditional communication tools such as memos or scheduled emails, real-time platforms simulate an "always-on duty" culture, implicitly demanding prompt responses regardless of the context.
From an operational standpoint, informal and unregulated communication channels present structural inefficiencies.
This hyperconnectivity has profound psychological implications. The inability to detach from work-related communications intrudes on mental space, affecting emotional well-being and leading to symptoms of burnout. Employees may experience persistent anxiety, irritability, and even sleep disorders. The stress caused by this round-the-clock expectation chips away at personal relationships, physical health, and the time needed for introspection and rejuvenation.
Younger professionals, especially those early in their careers, are disproportionately affected. In an attempt to prove diligence and reliability, many adopt an overly responsive approach, answering late-night messages or reacting to non-urgent communications during personal moments. This leads to heightened anxiety, as the line between dedication and overextension becomes dangerously blurred. Rather than being a tool for empowerment, communication technology becomes a mechanism for silent coercion.
From an operational standpoint, informal and unregulated communication channels present structural inefficiencies. Unlike traditional office systems that ensured accountability and order—through file tracking, documented instructions, and formalized hierarchies—instant messaging platforms lack structured workflows. Communication is often fragmented, imprecise, and susceptible to misinterpretation. Critical tasks can become obscured by trivial updates, resulting in oversight and duplication of effort.
Moreover, the absence of features like digital signatures, formal timestamping, and archival functionality poses significant challenges in authenticating instructions or referring back to communication trails. In environments where compliance and auditability are crucial, such informal exchanges fall short. What begins as a tool for convenience often morphs into a source of administrative confusion and inefficiency.
The overreliance on informal digital communication also deteriorates professional decorum. The casual tone often adopted in such platforms undermines the seriousness of official discourse. Important matters may be conveyed in fragmented or unclear messages, leading to misalignment and errors in execution. The erosion of formality in communication affects organizational discipline, creating a culture where urgency and clarity are constantly compromised.
There is a pressing need for a cultural and systemic shift in how organizations approach communication.
The broader implication is a workplace culture drifting toward toxicity. When employees feel scrutinized for their responsiveness or judged by their online visibility, a competitive and anxious atmosphere emerges. Surveillance replaces trust, and performance anxiety replaces teamwork. The result is a fragmented workforce where genuine productivity takes a back seat to the mere performance of connectivity.
This phenomenon cannot be resolved through technological intervention alone. There is a pressing need for a cultural and systemic shift in how organizations approach communication. Organizations must promote respect for individual time and distinguish between routine and urgent communications. Communication protocols should be standardized and aligned with realistic expectations.
A potential alternative is the development and adoption of dedicated platforms designed to cater to professional needs—systems that incorporate both the agility of instant messaging and the structure of formal communication. These platforms should enable features such as categorizing messages by priority, setting communication windows, archiving conversations systematically, and ensuring data security through encrypted and government-controlled servers where applicable.
In addition, leadership behavior plays a critical role. Managers and senior officials should set an example of responsible digital behavior by refraining from after-hours messaging unless absolutely required. This not only establishes a standard but also signals that the organization values the well-being of its employees. Establishing formal policies that define communication boundaries is vital in reinforcing these values.
The challenge lies in ensuring that technology serves us, not consumes us.
Training programs can also be instrumental. Sessions on digital etiquette, managing notifications, and setting boundaries can empower employees to engage more mindfully. Emphasis should be placed on time management, prioritization, and mental wellness. Organizations must actively cultivate an environment where boundaries are respected and employees feel secure in disconnecting without fear of judgment or professional disadvantage.
Furthermore, promoting trust-based work cultures over output surveillance will help dismantle the toxicity emerging from hyperconnectivity. By encouraging outcome-based evaluation rather than input visibility, organizations can allow professionals to work with autonomy and dignity.
That said, it is important to acknowledge that this very connectivity has brought significant advantages, particularly in sectors where rapid response and real-time coordination are critical. For emergency workers, disaster response teams, healthcare professionals, district administration, and law enforcement agencies, the ability to remain connected at all times has often meant the difference between life and death.
Real-time surveillance, instant data sharing, and continuous communication have enhanced situational awareness, streamlined coordination, and accelerated decision-making in high-stakes scenarios. In such contexts, the digital tether becomes an enabler, not a burden—ensuring that help is never too far away and that collective action can be mobilized swiftly in times of need.
Therefore, the modern workplace must recognize that digital connectivity is a double-edged sword. When harnessed wisely, it can effectively drive efficiency and collaboration. However, when left unchecked, it can lead to overwhelming pressure and a decline in quality of life. The challenge lies in ensuring that technology serves us, not consumes us.
Nabajyoti Narzary works in administration, where he explore the intersection of people and institutional systems at the grassroots level, uncovering untold stories of governance and everyday resilience. Writing is his sanctuary, flowing from daily observations and reflective moments, often captured in a personal diary and complemented by long evening walks with their dog, Nia. A college trip to Serbia sparked a lasting interest in Eastern European culture and history, inspiring a deep appreciation for the region’s complex tapestry shaped by centuries of conflict, coexistence, and cultural evolution.
Tagged:Digital Workplace Boundaries, Work-Life Balance in Tech Era, Always-On Work Culture, Workplace Mental Health, Employee Burnout and Technology, Hyperconnectivity and Productivity
Issues such as escalating unemployment, the deteriorating quality of education, environmental degradation, and increasing digital surveillance have direct implications for younger generations.
byJahidul Hassan
Guest Commentator
"Politics is not something to avoid. It is something to shape," said Barack Obama—words that ring especially true for India, home to the world’s largest youth population. With nearly 40% of Indians between the ages of 15 and 29, young people are uniquely positioned to reshape the country’s future.
Yet despite this demographic advantage, youth participation in Indian politics remains alarmingly low. From climate change and unemployment to digital governance and social justice, today's challenges require fresh ideas and active engagement. This article explores why political involvement among India’s youth is essential, what’s holding them back, and how they can take the lead.
Young Indians need to invest more time into politics and governance through voting, protests, and local leadership.
India’s Youth: A Demographic Powerhouse
India’s young population represents a vast reservoir of potential. Their energy, creativity, and digital fluency can bring innovative solutions to complex issues. However, their voices are often missing from the formal political process. While youth drive trends on social media and lead protest movements, many stop short of entering politics formally.
According to recent studies, nearly 46% of young Indians express little or no interest in politics. Even among the engaged, disillusionment with traditional political parties is common. This disengagement is a cause for concern, as it suggests that future leaders may be absent from the decision-making table.
Why Are Young Indians Reluctant to Enter Politics?
Several barriers hinder formal youth participation in politics:
Dynastic politics: Many political parties favor family lineage over merit.
Financial hurdles: Campaigning and nomination costs are often unaffordable.
Perception of instability: Politics is rarely seen as a secure or viable career path.
Lack of civic education: Most schools and colleges fail to provide political literacy.
These factors combine to create an environment where political ambition among youth often goes unrealized.
Disengagement Comes at a Cost
The absence of youth in governance doesn’t mean politics ignores them. Issues like unemployment, education inequality, and environmental degradation affect young people directly. If they don’t participate, policies will continue to be made without their input.
This disengagement is evident in voting trends. According to the Election Commission of India’s Lok Sabha 2024 Atlas, the share of voters aged 18–29 fell from 25.37% in 2019 to 22.78% in 2024. States like Rajasthan saw a steep drop in voter turnout among 18–19-year-olds, from 76.7% in 2019 to about 60% in 2024.
Panchayati Raj: A Gateway to Grassroots Leadership
Despite national-level disengagement, some hopeful signs are emerging. Local politics, especially through Panchayati Raj institutions, offers a promising entry point for youth. In Assam’s recent Panchayat elections, a significant number of candidates were under 40, and nearly 60% were women.
Young leaders are leveraging their tech-savviness and local knowledge to improve services like sanitation, water management, and primary education. They are also involved in executing schemes like MGNREGA, which directly affect their communities.
Former Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal highlighted this shift at the 35th Regional Youth Parliament Competition, emphasizing the need for young people to preserve and promote Assam’s heritage through active governance.
Learning from History: India’s Youth Movements
Youth have historically led transformative movements in India:
The Chipko Movement for forest conservation
Jayprakash Narayan’s Total Revolution
The Anti-Mandal protests and Bihar student movement
More recently, the anti-CAA demonstrations
These examples show that when mobilized, young people can drive change at every level.
Creating a Culture of Political Engagement
To unlock youth potential in governance, systemic change is needed. This includes:
Transparent political recruitment: Parties must prioritize competence over legacy.
Financial support: Scholarships or grants for political aspirants can ease entry barriers.
Civic education: Schools and colleges should offer practical lessons in political systems and leadership.
Youth platforms: Initiatives like mock parliaments and civic fellowships can cultivate future leaders.
National Youth Day, celebrated in honor of Swami Vivekananda, underscores the role of young people in shaping India’s destiny. Government initiatives like the National Youth Policy and National Youth Parliament aim to build capacity and leadership among India’s emerging voters and visionaries.
The Road Ahead: Youth as Changemakers
Ultimately, youth participation in politics is not just about age—it’s about perspective, innovation, and the will to build a more inclusive India. In states like Assam, where challenges such as unemployment and ethnic tensions persist, the need for active youth leadership is even more urgent.
The recent rise in young Panchayat candidates signals a shift, but much remains to be done. Young Indians must go beyond protest and advocacy to step into roles as elected leaders and policy architects.
India’s future won’t be built for the youth—it must be built by them.
Jahidul Hassan is a research student at Darul Huda Islamic University in Kerala, India. In his leisure time he likes to talk to friends and travel. If given to fly anywhere in the world first class, it would be to Switzerland.
Air traffic controllers have been using outdated equipment for decades. Modernization plans are finally underway. The current radar system is a 1960s design which was upgraded in the 1990s.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Air traffic controllers have been using outdated equipment for decades. Some Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA) facilities are over 50 years old. The Government accountability office reported 51 of 138 air traffic control systems are unsustainable due to age and outdated functionality.
Equipment upgrades have been delayed for at least a decade. Modernization plans are finally underway. The current radar system is a 1960s design which was upgraded in the 1990s. The communication systems date back to the 1970s and 1980s. The upgrades include ERAM, Enroute Automation Modernization, cloud-based radar tracking. Datacom, digital pilot controller communications and ADS-B, Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, which is precise GPS tracking. The anticipated completion of these updates will not likely be until 2030 with an anticipated budget of 7.2 billion dollars and growing.
In the meantime, American travelers are suffering long layovers and abrupt flight cancellations. Worse, flying has become more dangerous. While it is still touted as the safest form of transportation by the airlines, it doesn’t feel quite as safe to some of us.
On top of aging, outdated equipment, we have a big shortage of air traffic controllers. The FAA is 3500 air traffic controllers short of targeted staffing. The shortage causes flight delays and forces many controllers to work mandatory overtime and six-day weeks. The reasons behind these shortages are several. The rapid return to air travel after Covid-19. Pre-pandemic hiring freezes and layoffs. Retirement of experienced controllers. Challenges in training new controllers.
To address this the US Transportation Department is offering incentives to recruit and retain controllers. Air traffic controllers can make $140,000 to over $200,000 a year.
Another problem. Our National Weather Service is understaffed especially ahead of hurricane season starting June 1st.
Specifically, 30 out of 122 weather forecast offices lack chief meteorologists. This shortage is concerning given the increasing frequency of billion-dollar disasters- 27 occurred just last year. Officials have warned this could compromise disaster response.
The shortages are due to massive retirement numbers. At least 25% have retired from the workforce in the last five years. The starting pay is in the low forty-thousand-dollar range. The hiring process takes about 300 days and ther is a high education requirement for the job. The burnout rate is also high. The job is very stressful with long hours especially during severe weather events.
Another problem across American is our water. Many American communities have outdated water systems. These aging systems pose serious health and environmental risks especially in rural areas where populations are declining and funds are scarce.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the US drinking water infrastructure a grade of D minus for over a decade due to its deteriorating condition.
In the last five years America has spent around $370 billion on foreign aid. A big chunk of this went to Ukraine.
America has worked hard. We deserve to have current, up to date aviation systems, accurate up to date weather reporting and a clean drink of water. Let’s please use some of this $370 billion to fix things at home.
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
The path forward demands urgent introspection, from political parties and the community alike. Parties must invest in building inclusive platforms that prioritize competence and character over tokenism.
byAshfaq Choudhury
In Assam’s intricate political landscape, the state’s sizable Muslim population, nearly 34% of its total, remains one of the most electorally significant yet politically voiceless communities. On paper, representation appears sufficient: 31 out of 126 MLAs in the Assam Legislative Assembly are Muslim. But beyond numbers, there is a growing sense of abandonment, a leadership vacuum that becomes glaring during moments of crisis.
The recently concluded panchayat elections have only sharpened this perception. Despite the symbolic presence of Muslim leaders in the legislature, a striking absence of real advocacy persists. These elected figures are often visible during campaigns and in constituency events, but in the heat of critical debates—be it on citizenship, identity, or communal tensions—their silence is deafening. For many, it no longer feels like representation, but rather a performance devoid of agency.
The Muslim community in Assam is not lacking in numbers or political engagement. What it lacks is a mass leader—someone with the courage, clarity, and intellectual heft to articulate the community’s concerns in the state’s mainstream discourse. Most Muslim leaders remain confined to their constituencies, avoiding broader engagement on sensitive issues that demand moral conviction and political skill.
Take, for instance, the recent controversy surrounding the WAQF Amendment Bill. Regardless of one’s stance on the bill, what stood out was the lack of a strong, unified voice from within the Muslim leadership. While a few MLAs from the AIUDF did register protest, their message lacked resonance in the absence of a credible, widely respected face, especially after Badruddin Ajmal’s defeat in Dhubri, which has left the party without a clear figurehead.
Historically, the Congress party has positioned itself as the natural home for Muslim voters in Assam. It has benefited from decades of loyalty, largely rooted in fears of marginalization and communal politics. But this reliance on Muslim-majority “safe seats” has bred complacency. The incentive to nurture bold, capable Muslim leaders has diminished. Instead of dynamic representation, the community has been handed ritualistic tokenism.
For young Muslims disillusioned by the recent election outcomes, this is not the time to retreat.
Many Muslim MLAs today seem more invested in political survival than in principled leadership. They hesitate to speak on issues that challenge the dominant narrative, fearing backlash or loss of favor within their parties. Their silence during moments that demand empathy and courage isn’t just disappointing; it’s dangerous. It sends a signal that the community can be electorally significant but politically disposable.
The current vacuum is particularly painful when viewed in the light of Assam’s past. The state once produced towering figures like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, who went on to become President of India, and Moinul Hoque Choudhury, a respected national leader. Their presence not only inspired pride but also offered tangible proof that Muslims in Assam could shape national discourse. Today, such leadership is conspicuously absent.
The path forward demands urgent introspection, from political parties and the community alike. Parties must invest in building inclusive platforms that prioritize competence and character over tokenism. But the onus also lies on the community to identify, encourage, and elevate a new generation of leaders—individuals who combine education with grassroots connection, who can speak not only for Muslims but also to the larger issues that shape Assam’s future.
For young Muslims disillusioned by the recent election outcomes, this is not the time to retreat. It is a clarion call to participate more deeply, to organize, speak out, and reclaim agency. Leadership is not handed down by political parties; it is built from the ground up, rooted in conviction and service.
Assam’s Muslims must stop waiting for saviors. The community must begin cultivating leaders who do not simply occupy legislative seats but embody the courage, clarity, and vision required to honor the trust placed in them. Only then can representation move beyond symbols to become a force for genuine change.
About the author ~
Ashfaq Choudhury is a student at Delhi University. An aspiring journalist from Assam with a passion for telling untold stories from the Northeast, Choudhury's hopes to amplify voices that often go unheard and spark conversations that matter.
Operation Sindoor was not a move of aggression against the country of Pakistan, but a selective action against terrorism.
Viewpoint
byIshanee Chaliha
India started Operation Sindoor on May 7, 2025, as a retaliatory action against the Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, that massacred 26 civilians. The attack was a massive blow to the Indian nation and the world in general.
Operation Sindoor was initiated as a retaliation with precision and hit nine targeted terrorist camps- four within Pakistan and five within Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The operation was tactically commanded and guided by Wing Commander Vyomika Singh and Colonel Sofia Qureshi, and its successful accomplishment was greeted with overwhelming national admiration.
International responses to the operation were highly polarized. Israel expressed unambiguous support to India, labeling the operation as a rightful act of self-defence. Its Indian ambassador stated that “terrorists must know there is no hiding from their atrocious act against the innocents.”
On the contrary, countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, China, and Germany called for restraint and the resumption of diplomatic talks. U.S. President Donald Trump even went to the extent of condemning the operation as a “shame,” whereas the foreign secretary of the U.K. warned that "if this escalates further, nobody wins." Likewise, a Taliban statement from Afghanistan called for restraint and diplomatic talks on both sides.
These reactions have, however, raised some serious questions regarding the double standards of international diplomacy. Historical experiences indicate that terrorist attacks against Western countries frequently trigger massive military interventions under the pretext of an international war against terror.
However, when identical events take place in non-Western nations, particularly those in the Global South, response measures are most often termed as unwarranted or shameful. In addition, nations like China, which were accused of giving military aid to Pakistan, are now emerging as impartial intermediaries, contributing to the intricacies and perceived paradoxes of the international reaction.
Operation Sindoor was not a move of aggression against the country of Pakistan, but a selective action against terrorism. By limiting itself to targeting militant infrastructure and avoiding civilian casualties, the operation helps underline India's long-standing role as a country that never seeks war, yet has the will and ability to finish it once provoked. The international community's disparate responses to the operation lead one to pose the following critical question: Are such reactions based on genuine diplomatic concern or part of a larger trend of geopolitical hypocrisy?
Ishanee Chaliha a student studying political science at Christ University in Bangalore. In her free time she enjoys learning new languages and is currently working toward proficiency in Korean and German. She believes the key to a good life starts within yourself which is to find your individuality and cultivate on it and later contribute to the society through it.
Most Americans still tell pollsters immigration is good for their communities and reject cruel deportations, especially those that separate families, target people without criminal records, or penalize people who came here as young children.
byMeredith Lehman OtherWords
I recall seeing a sign in a yard in my small hometown of around 12,000 residents. “No matter where you are from,” it said, “we’re glad you are our neighbor.”
It was positioned defiantly, facing a Trump sign that had been plunged into the neighbor’s yard across the street. It poignantly illustrated the tensions in my rural Ohio town, which — like many similar communities — has experienced a rapid influx of immigrants over the last 20 years.
The sign’s sentiment was simple yet profound. I found myself wondering then, as I wonder now, when compassion had become so complicated. It seems everyone has become preoccupied arguing over the minutiae of immigration that they’ve missed the most glaring and essential point: We are neighbors.
Small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy, a truth so widely acknowledged that it bridges the ever-growing partisan divide.
While writing this piece, I gathered studies and prepared a detailed analysis of the ways immigrants have transformed and revitalized the economies of the Rust Belt. I was going to explain how immigrants have helped fill vacant housing and industry in this region’s shrinking cities to reverse the toll of population decline.
I gathered statistics showing the economic growth and revitalization that’s happened as immigrants have brought flourishing small businesses to their new communities. Like: Despite making up only around 14 percent of the U.S. population, immigrants own 18 percent of small businesses with employees — and nearly a quarter of small businesses without employees. (And immigrants in Rust Belt cities are even more likely to be entrepreneurs.)
Small businesses are the backbone of the U.S. economy, a truth so widely acknowledged that it bridges the ever-growing partisan divide. Both Vice President JD Vance and former Vice President Kamala Harris have promoted the critical role of small businesses in economic flourishing.
I was going to tell a story about Joe, a vendor at my local flea market. He and other vendors were heavily averse to migrants purchasing the dilapidated building from the previous owner. Now they laud the building’s new management and improved conditions.
I was going to describe the experiences of my recently immigrated high school peers, who sometimes fell asleep in class from sheer exhaustion after working night shifts at meatpacking plants and attending school for seven hours the next day.
I was going to explain why communities not only benefit from immigrants, but need them.
As immigration is expected to become the sole driver of U.S. population growth by 2040, restrictive immigration policies threaten to undermine this vital program, as a cornerstone of the American social safety net.
Without immigrants, I learned, U.S. communities would lose the nearly $1 trillion of state, local, and federal taxes that immigrants contribute annually. This number is almost $300 billion more than immigrants receive in government benefits.
Without immigration, the U.S. working-age population is projected to decline by approximately 6 million over the next two decades — a shift that would carry significant consequences, especially for the Social Security system. Sustained population growth is critical to preserving a balanced ratio of workers contributing to Social Security for every beneficiary receiving support.
As immigration is expected to become the sole driver of U.S. population growth by 2040, restrictive immigration policies threaten to undermine this vital program, as a cornerstone of the American social safety net. With broad public support for strengthening Social Security, embracing immigration is not just beneficial — it is essential to ensuring the program’s long-term stability and success.
I was prepared to comb through every dissent in an effort to prove why our neighbors are deserving of empathy and compassion. But none of these answers address the larger, more urgent question: When did being neighbors cease to be enough?
Most Americans still tell pollsters immigration is good for their communities and reject cruel deportations, especially those that separate families, target people without criminal records, or penalize people who came here as young children.
My rural Ohio town, and countless communities like it, are slowly learning the most important lesson about this supposedly complicated issue: Compassion doesn’t need to be complicated.
Meredith Lehman is a research associate at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org
Now is not the time to faint or jump from the roller coaster. Who knows how the market will perform over the next few weeks.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
You never undo your seat belt or jump from a moving roller coaster. Nor, should you when it comes to our current Stock market.
Eight years ago, if you bought a share of VOO or Vanguard S & P 500 ETF stock, you may have paid about $220 for the share. Today, as of this writing it’s worth $490.55. In other words, even with the fall of the stock market recently you have made good money on your investment. A couple of weeks back it was up to $560 which means you were flying high on your profit. Still yet, you have done well.
If you bought your share of VOO two weeks ago at $560 then you have lost $70, at least for now. You may lose some more but you have to hold tight. Don’t panic and sell now or you will have a loss. Ride it out and give the market time to settle down and rise again. If you have to cash in your stock then cash in while they are high.
Now may be a good time to buy but keep in mind the market may go down some more.
Don’t invest your grocery money in stock. This is the money you need every week for food, shelter, travel and overhead. This is not the money you spend on stock. If you do, then in two weeks you will have to sell your stock to eat and risk losing some of the money you invested. Only invest in stock what you don’t currently need for general living expenses.
Who knows how the market will perform over the next few weeks. It’s going to be a few weeks or months before the tariffs really shape up as to what is really what. The reports are that numerous countries are coming to the table interested in making deals and playing fair with the United States. This will be good for us and them. As these deals stabilize look for the stock market to become more stable once again. If Japan, India, South Korea, Canada and Mexico all level the playing field with the United States our stock market will level out. If there are more reports of industry manufacturing coming to the United States the stock market will begin to rise again.
Now may be a good time to buy but keep in mind the market may go down some more. If you bought VIG two weeks ago then you’ve already seen a significant drop. Keep in mind you only lose it if you sell it when the stock is down. I feel confident that the stock market will come back bigger and bolder than ever but it may take a few months or longer.
The stock market has averaged making about ten percent over the last fifty years. This means it has had years when it made more and years when it made less. An average of ten percent is about the best you can do on your money over the long haul.
Now is not the time to faint or jump from the roller coaster. Rely on your stable income such as Social Security, or any other stable income you may have. If you have a regular paying job you may want to stay with it a little while longer if you can and if you enjoy your work.
About the author ~
Glen Mollett is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states.
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
An astonishing number of Trump supporters took the dangling video bait and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
After last weekend's Hands Off! protests across the country, TikTok creator @redsaidblue posted a satirical video, sprinkled with subtle digs at popular MAGA stereotypes, in which she claimed to be attending the protest as a paid participant. In the video, she described what she could and couldn’t wear, who her point of contact was, and that she would receive a bonus for bringing a sign.
"I got paid $100 for going to the protest, and I got an extra $10 for bringing the sign," she confesses to viewers in character as a Trump supporter going over to the other side to make a few bucks. "Overall, it was a pretty good experience. The people were pretty nice."
A MAGA supporter on X (formerly Twitter) with over 200,000 followers, "@TheEXECUTlONER_", posted the performance to his account and encouraged other Trump supporters to share it. The buffoonery sailed by unchecked by rational thought or rudimentary critical thinking.
There were 1,400 Hands Off! demonstrations across the country on Saturday. The majority drew well over 1,000 participants. Conservatively, someone or some entity would have spent around $140 million (before signs). The kicker: an estimated 3 million people took part in the nationwide protests. If all the marchers were punching the proverbial clock, someone would have spent $300 million—which might have been a boon to the economy after the stock market experienced its steepest plunge since COVID, during Trump’s first term.
While @redsaidblue wasn’t actually paid to protest—it's not clear if she even attended one—the blue-check MAGA user is making bank. As of this story, the video had been shared by 24,000 other accounts on the social media platform. While the young woman wasn’t actually paid for the protest, the account that posted her video is cleaning up, having collected 47,000 likes and over 3,000 comments so far.
Meanwhile, the creator began receiving negative backlash from liberals for posting the video, which she eventually took down. She is now attempting to remove copies from the internet. Supporters from the left were enraged, claiming her video added fuel to the political fire by implying extreme right conservatives aren’t smart enough to recognize when they’re being punked.
It appears her critics were right. The video—or screenshots with text excerpts from it—is circulating on conservative social media channels as supposed proof that liberal protesters are social justice mercenaries, reinforcing the narrative that liberals only protest against the Trump administration because they are paid.
Redsaidblue posted a follow-up video to her TikTok account yesterday, apologizing to fellow liberals for harming their movement.
"I truly thought it was so obvious that it was a joke. I thought that if anyone did take it seriously, if they shared it with someone else, the next person would be like, "Bro, that's satire".
Do paid protesters actually exist? They don't, according to an article from USA Today.
"Time after time, claims of "paid protesters" have been debunked, sometimes by the very people who made them in the first place," according to an article by John R. Roby.
Leo Gertner wrote a piece for The Washington Post entitled, "So what if protesters are paid?"
Gertner wrote, "So the next time someone tries to discredit a movement by insinuating that some of the people on the ground are being compensated, ask the all-important question: So what?"
What's the old saying? Freedom isn't free.
Let’s say you’re lucky enough to get housing at that wage. Do you then spend all your money on rent and skip nutritious meals for your family?
byJocelyn Smith OtherWords
Photo: Donna Spearman/Unsplash
I know how it feels to be hungry and homeless.
That’s why after work, I drive around town and pick up leftover food from restaurants, schools, grocery stores, and special events. My fellow volunteers and I set up in a big parking lot in our downtown to make this food available to anyone who shows up — no questions asked.
And it’s why other volunteers and I also work to find empty housing units that have fallen into disrepair because the landlords can’t afford the upkeep. We raise money and give them grants so they can bring the units up to code for use as low-income housing rentals.
I’m proud to do this work. But it’s no substitute for fair, living wages and a reliable public safety net. The minimum wage where I live is $12 — well below the $21 per hour the National Low Income Housing Coalition has calculated is necessary to afford a market rate two-bedroom rental locally.
Let’s say you’re lucky enough to get housing at that wage. Do you then spend all your money on rent and skip nutritious meals for your family? Or do you skip health care and medication? If you have a paycheck and a roof over your head, you might not qualify for food assistance, even if you don’t make enough to make ends meet.
Photo: Joel Muniz/Unsplash
Foodbanks play a crucial role in addressing hunger and ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to nutritious food when they are unable to afford or access enough food on their own.
I work, volunteer, take care of my child, and I’m fortunate enough to have housing. But I still need to rely on SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as “food stamps” — for my family.
My daughter has epilepsy, and thankfully I was able to get her onto Social Security Disability Insurance. However, she needs not only costly medication but also frequent neurological supervision and a device that helps to stop her seizures. There’s no neurologist in our town who can treat her, so we have to travel and lodge hours away for it.
when we need help, the bar for our income shouldn’t be so low that we must be nearly destitute, without any savings or emergency cushion, to qualify.
The expense is enormous, and that’s not even getting into expensive medications for my own heart problems and autoimmune disorders. Thankfully, we qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise, treatment would be out of reach.
But what does it say about our policy priorities when we need to say, “I’m disabled, taking care of my disabled daughter, I work, and I help feed my community, and yet I need assistance affording meals for my family?” These are the realities that a good society plans for so we can all thrive, no matter what obstacles life throws our way.
The programs our tax dollars pay for so families like mine can get help when we need it must be more robust. Programs like SSDI shouldn’t be so inaccessible. Food, housing, and health care shouldn’t be so expensive — and wages shouldn’t be so low that these basic necessities are unaffordable.
And when we need help, the bar for our income shouldn’t be so low that we must be nearly destitute, without any savings or emergency cushion, to qualify.
Is Congress working on any of this? Unfortunately, no. Instead, they’re doing the opposite right now.
In fact, the GOP budget proposal would slash $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion from food assistance. They’re also cutting government agencies that assist with affordable housing, transportation, safety, veterans, and children with disabilities.
Why? Because they need to find at least $4.5 trillion to give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest and largest corporations. They are reaching into my very shallow pockets, into my daughter’s life-saving medical care, and into the mouths of those who come to my food table in that parking lot.
They’re stealing from us to give to the rich, perpetuating a vicious cycle of poverty that keeps people homeless and hungry.
I don’t think that’s fair. Do you? We all deserve better.
Jocelyn Smith lives in Roswell, New Mexico. She works at a local talk radio station, runs a local Food not Bombs chapter, and volunteers at Rehab to Rental, helping to increase affordable housing options. This op-ed was produced in partnership with the Institute for Policy Studies and the Working Class Storyteller and distributed by OtherWords.org.
Six ways Trump's budget will damage rural Americans' way of life
Right now, Congress is working on a giant, fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
